PEO Soldier is pursuing a “Dual Path” strategy of modernizing the Army’s service rifles through a Headquarters Department of the Army directed M4 Carbine Product Improvement Program (PIP) and a simultaneous, full and open, “best value” Individual Carbine Competition. The outcome of these efforts will provide Soldiers with individual weapons that are more effective, reliable, sustainable, and rate highly in Soldier evaluations. The Dual Path is a win-win for the Soldier who will either be equipped with an entirely new carbine or an even better version of a combat-proven platform.

The M4 series has served Soldiers well throughout more than a decade of sustained combat. Yet, it is critical for the Army to continue to strengthen the 500,000 M4s in the inventory since the M4 series will remain in the field for years to come regardless of the outcome of the carbine competition. The Army is pursuing a two-phase PIP to keep the M4 inventory strong. Phase I upgrades the Army’s M4s to the Special Forces’ M4A1, while Phase II explores future improvements for the M4A1 Carbine to deliver enhanced reliability, durability, ergonomics and zero retention.

There are several benefits to upgrading M4s to M4A1s. Compared to the M4, the M4A1 has full auto capability, a consistent trigger pull, and a slightly heavier barrel. The heavier barrel is more durable and has greater capacity to maintain accuracy and zero while withstanding the heat produced by high volumes of fire. New and upgraded M4A1s will also receive ambidextrous fire control.

PHASE I PIP: Fleet Conversion to M4A1s
Project Manager Soldier Weapons (PM SW) initiated Phase I by modifying its contract for the production of M4s to the M4A1. PM SW took delivery of 9,582 new M4A1s to complete this action. In support, TACOM Life Cycle Management Command will have fielded approximately 6,000 M4A1 Carbines to the 101st Airborne Division by September and plans to field an additional 3,000 M4A1s to another unit within the next several months.

PM SW also held a competition for the manufacture of 24,000 additional M4A1 Carbines. The Army awarded a contract in April to Remington Arms Co. The award came under protest and the Army is currently developing several courses of action to comply with the Government Accountability Office ruling and concerns regarding the competition. Once the contract dispute is resolved, other services will be able to place M4A1 and M4 orders against the contract as well.

The main thrust of Phase I is to upgrade existing M4s to the M4A1 configuration. The Army authorized the conversion of all M4s to the M4A1 standard with the upgrade currently budgeted for 300,000 M4s. The Army will complete the upgrades through the purchase of components that support modification work orders (MWO) that will be applied by Small Arms Readiness and Evaluation Teams (SARET).

The Army awarded six contracts for MWO kit components to date. Five of the awarded contracts went to small businesses. The awards reflect a success in the Army’s strategy to broaden the opportunities for small arms contractors and strengthen the diversity of the industrial base. PM SW anticipates awarding the final contract this summer for the barrel and bolt assembly. SARET is scheduled to begin upgrading M4s at a maximum rate of 8,000 a month beginning in late summer 2013.

PHASE II: Exploring Improvements
PM SW completed its best value M4 bolt and bolt carrier assembly competition in April 2012, though the competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013. More than six months of testing and evaluation determined that none of the 11 competing designs met the overall requirements outlined in the solicitation. The M4’s current bolt and bolt carrier assembly outperforms the competing designs in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp/low-temp tests. The Army saved nearly $2 million as a result of the early completion of the competition.

The conclusion of the bolt competition, however, does not impact the search for a better forward rail assembly. PM SW completed bid sample testing for a forward rail assembly competition in early August. The Army may award contracts to up to three finalists in early 2013 with the selection of a final winner in early 2014. If the Army determines that the winning rail system should be procured, delivery of new rails is anticipated in the summer of 2014.

Continuous Improvement
The M4 PIP is just another step in a long history of continuously improving Soldier weapons. The Army has already made more than 90 performance “Engineering Change Proposals” to the M4 Carbine since its introduction. Improvements have been made to the trigger assembly, extractor spring, recoil buffer, barrel chamber, magazine and bolt, as well as ergonomic changes to allow Soldiers to tailor the system to meet their needs. Today’s M4 is quite different “under the hood” than its predecessors and tomorrow’s M4A1 will be even further refined to provide Soldiers with an even more effective and reliable weapon system.

About ddawson

DalekVal

Product Improvement program? The correct name is the Colt M4 corporate welfare program.

garcia96099

Hi,
Here are my recommendations to improve the M4:
o Fully Auto Trigger .
o Lighter, longer, stronger, free floating handguard with a fold down front sight . The handguard must allow for the addition of rail attachement points to accomodate sling attachment point, bipod, angled foregrip, illuminators and aiming lasers. The handguard is longer to allow the non firing arm to fully extend in the standing position to enable a more controlled short range rapid fire standing position: this position is “active” – the underneath gangster grip, bent elbow, non firing arm position is “reactive.” in the active position the natural weight of the non firing arm with elbow locked and non firing hand thumb over the top of the handguard is more controllable and allows for more accurate and more rapid follow on shots because the sight returns (or doesnt depart as much) from the intended target as opposed to the “reactive” bent elbow underneath grip. For proof: see standing firing position of every championship three gun competitor in the country/SSG Daniel Horner/ or Team California – 2013 and 2014 U.S. Army Small Arms Champions. The short handguard on the M4 doesnt lend itself to a solid standing grip. A free floating handguard allows for much more accurate fire at any given distance… too many references to list. It’s accepted fact.
o Fold down adjustable front sight. The current front sight post is MASSIVE and more suited for “area” targets than precision rifle fire. Ask any U.S. Army Distinguished Rifleman (do you PEO Officers ever do that?) or service rifle champion. The front sight is really poor. Look at the WWII German Mauser front sight. It came up from a triangle base to a precise pinnacle – this is a very accurate and extremely durable design feature. A new front sight should be fold down – because in the U.S. Army our primary sight is an optic and iron sights are for back up in most cases. The Fold Down front sight feature should also include a knurled bezel embedded in the sight block to elevate and depress the front sight post. I like the Knights Armament fold down front sight the best for the size of the sight post, the knurled bezel adjustment feature, the fold down feature, but it misses the mark by not locking into place or being spring loaded…. A shooter might not fully erect the KA front sight which will lead to a miss. I would change the front sight post on the Knights Armament Sight so that it comes to a pinnacle instead of a flat squared off tip.
o Fold down rear sight. The MATech BUIS design we have is CRAP! The Carrying handle rear sight (CHRS) is better – but poor. Ask any U.S. Army Distinguished Rifleman who has competed with these. The rear sight aperature for both BUIS and CHRS is FAR TOO LARGE! I understand having a large aperature for the close range/night rear sight aperature – the “long range” aprerature is way too big. It’s difficult to center up anything in that large opening, the rifle and ammunition are far more accurate than the sights permit the Soldier to be. The Knights Armament type fold down adjustable rear sight nearly delivers the mail – but still isn’t spring loaded and doesnt lock into place. 1/2MOA adjustment is decent… I would remain with this feature.
o Muzzle brakes/flash hiders that will accept suppressors and more effectively reduce flash are available COTS. The birdcage flash hider is UNSAT in comparison. As we have a much smaller army today and it is getting smaller – issuing suppressors with every rifle is far more cost effective than paying VA disability for hearing loss and tinitus over the lifetime of a disabled Soldier. Suppressors dramatically reduce noise pollution (Environmental) footprints with the local communities and in many cases around the Army will allow us to conduct more night live fire training. Reduced noise on live fire range also increases situational awarness and thereby enhances safety of all live fire ranges conducted with suppressors. It’s foolish to avoid this expense.
o Sling. There are two outstanding sling designs out there that are developed from the most experienced army combat operators. The Vickers sling, and the V-Tac sling. Choose one and use it as “The Sling” for the U.S. Army.
o Rear sling attachment point. The rear sling attacment point is in the wrong spot and doesnt allow the rifle to lay against the body in an orientation that lends itself to rapid application of short range rifle fire.
More to follow…
1SG Jose A. Garcia

http://batman-news.com Jay

You have bad info bro. There are many different contractors that are making parts not just Colt.